DOCSLIB.ORG

José Carlos Mariátegui's Uniquely Diverse Marxist Thought Spans A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
José Carlos Mariátegui's Uniquely Diverse Marxist Thought Spans A José Carlos Mariátegui’s uniquely diverse Marxist thought spans a wide array of topics and offers invaluable insight not only for historians seeking to better understand the reality of early twentieth century Peru, but also for revolutionaries desiring to flexibly apply Marxism to unique social, economic, and political circumstances. Mariátegui’s primary theoretical contributions can be found in his analysis of Peru’s historical economic evolution, its relationship to the global capitalist system, as well as his views on the so-called “indigenous problem”—an issue intimately bound together with Peru’s economic circumstances. Mariátegui saw Peru as a country defined by imperialist subjugation, with a rural population made up of a heavily exploited, primarily indigenous population, with the potential to serve as a bulwark of revolutionary strength. Mariátegui was one of the first Marxist thinkers to recognize the revolutionary potential of the peasantry given conditions of semi-feudal socio-economic and political domination. In this way, Mariátegui can be seen as a precursor to other Third World revolutionaries of the twentieth century—Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. As a Marxist, Mariátegui invested a great deal of intellectual energy analyzing the economic factors influencing Peru’s social and political problems. Mariátegui concluded that early twentieth century Peru was a country simultaneously containing three separate economic systems. The first of these was a semi-feudal rural economy—a still potent holdover from the era of Spanish colonial rule. For Mariátegui, feudalism was the primary hindrance to Peru’s development. Not only was it a system imposed on the country by Spain, but it was also a backwards economic model that was, in actuality, inferior to the previously existing pre-colonial Incan economy. According to Mariátegui, the Incan empire was able to maintain an ever- expanding population—reaching ten million inhabitants at its peak—through the implementation of a system defined by large-scale collective agriculture and vast public works. Based on his research and analysis of Incan civilization, Mariátegui concluded that, far from increasing production, “[t]he Spanish conquistadors destroyed this impressive productive machine without being able to replace it.” 1 This initial destruction of the Incan economy had left Peru indefinitely shackled to colonial and imperial control. Even with the defeat of the Spanish and the formal triumph of the bourgeois revolution culminating in the formation of the Peruvian Republic following the War of Independence, the semi-feudal Spanish economy remained in full force throughout much of the country. However, at the same time, remnants of the former indigenous agricultural economy still existed in some areas. Although it had largely been destroyed, Mariátegui believed that vestiges of indigenous agricultural communism could be utilized as the basis upon which modern, socialist collective agriculture might be built. The third economic system then existing within Peru was a modern capitalism centered primarily along the coast—out of the grasp of the feudal rural bosses. However, as Mariátegui observed, this primarily coastal bourgeoisie was “backward at least in its mental outlook” 2 and did not have the power to resist either internal domination from feudal holdovers or external domination from imperialist forces. In order to affect development independent of these semi-colonial shackles, a socialist revolution would be necessary. These unstable, conflicting forces within Peru’s internal economy allowed for acute foreign capitalist penetration that distorted Peru’s economy towards raw commodity exports. Following the War of Independence, rather than carrying the revolution to its logical conclusion, the national bourgeoisie did not have the power to confront feudal forces head on and, therefore, 1 José Carlos Mariátegui, “Outline of the Economic Evolution,” Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. Accessed from http://www.marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1928/essay01.htm. 2 Ibid. allowed the landowning elite to maintain its social, political, and economic power. While substantial elements of the colonial economy were formally outlawed (the mita and encomienda, for example), the economy maintained its feudal character. Although indigenous serfdom was technically eliminated, Mariátegui concluded that “[t]he revolution had not really brought a new class to power. The professional and commercial bourgeoisie was too weak to govern. The abolition of serfdom, therefore, never became more than a theoretical statement because the revolution had not touched the landholding system.” 3 And, even where production took on a bourgeois character, defined by wage labor and industrial technology, it did not allow for any significant national capitalist development. The more advanced industrial coastal estates were geared almost entirely towards exports to foreign powers—largely Great Britain initially; later, after the construction of the Panama Canal, primarily the United States. Although the coastal estates had reached a “more or less advanced technical capitalist level… their exploitation still relie[d] on feudal practices and principles.” 4 Mariátegui traced the historical development of capitalist enterprise in Peru, beginning with the export of guano and nitrates and culminating in the production and export of sugar and cotton. He concluded that the Peruvian economy remained “entirely dependent on the economic colonization of Latin America by Western capitalism.” 5 Always geared towards foreign markets, this type of economy led to what Mariátegui described as “invisible exports.” 6 The profits from Peruvian mining and agriculture did not stay in Peru, but instead flowed out of the country—towards North America and Europe. The Peruvian economy could only recover some of this money by requesting loans, thus further deepening the cycle of exploitation and semi-colonial subjugation. 3 Mariátegui, "The Land Problem," José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 85. 4 Ibid., 91. 5 Ibid. 6 Mariátegui, "Colonial Economy," José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 134. Mariátegui’s solution to the problem of economic dependence and imperialist subjugation was socialist revolution. This revolution would be at once anti-feudal and anti-capitalist. Mariátegui saw that the national bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out the progressive functions that had historically belonged to the bourgeoisie in Europe and North America. Instead of bringing about national development, Peru’s weak national bourgeoisie recognized “cooperation with imperialism as the best source of profits” and, therefore, did not “worry seriously about national sovereignty.” 7 Consequently, Mariátegui, as a socialist and anti- imperialist, recognized the power of an authentic Peruvian nationalism. This nationalism was not to be a platform in and of itself, but was, for Mariátegui, a natural extension of the socialist revolution—the only course of action that could “permanently and truly oppose the advance of imperialism.” 8 The influence of Lenin’s writings on imperialism can be clearly seen in Mariátegui’s thought. Likewise, Mariátegui’s recognition that, while the nationalism of the European and North American world powers was “reactionary and anti-socialist”, the nationalism of colonial peoples was “revolutionary, and therefore ends in socialism” 9, foreshadows the ideology of later Third World revolutionaries. For Mariátegui, this Peruvian national revolutionary identity would be defined by its emphasis on the situation of its indigenous peoples—making up as much as four-fifths of the Peruvian population according to Mariátegui. Mariátegui asserted that “[t]he current economy, current Peruvian society, suffers from the original sin of the conquest. This is the sin of having been born and having been formed without the Indian and against the Indian.” 10 Mariátegui 7 Mariátegui, "Anti-Imperialist Point of View," José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 266. 8 Ibid., 269. 9 Mariátegui, "Reply to Luis Alberto Sánchez," José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 175. 10 Mariátegui, "The Economic Factor in Peruvian History," José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 120. intended for the Peruvian socialist revolution to be born with, by, and for the Indian. Mariátegui’s emphasis on the plight of indigenous people has much to do with the climate in which he was writing. Indigenismo was very much in vogue at the time of Mariátegui’s intellectual formation and ideological work. Its emphasis on the study of indigenous culture and society certainly informed much of Mariátegui’s own thought on the matter. However, Mariátegui went beyond the narrow reverence for the pre-Colombian Incan civilization that dominated a great deal of indigenista intellectual work and, instead, incorporated his knowledge of indigenous life into a Marxist analytical framework that did not simply look to the glory of the past, but also envisioned a better future in which traditional native communal practices would be fused with modern scientific socialism. As Mariátegui saw it, the so-called “Indian problem” was primarily a socio-economic problem. It could not be reduced to “any thesis that confines the question to one or another of the following unilateral criteria: administrative, legal, ethnic, moral, educational, ecclesiastic.” 11 Mariátegui saw that the establishment of an independent republic in Peru had failed to forward the cause of the indigenous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Embattled Political Aesthetics of José Carlos Mariátegui and Amauta
    A Realist Indigenism: The Embattled Political Aesthetics of José Carlos Mariátegui and Amauta BY ERIN MARIA MADARIETA B.A., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Art History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2019 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Blake Stimson, Art History, Advisor and Chair Andrew Finegold, Art History Nicholas Brown, English Margarita Saona, Hispanic and Italian Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1 BEYOND THE “SECTARIAN DIVIDE”: MARIÁTEGUI’S EXPANSIVE REALISM………..9 TOWARD A REALIST INDIGENISM: PARSING MARXISM, INDIGENISM, AND POPULISM………………………………………………………………………………………33 “THE PROBLEM OF RACE IN LATIN AMERICA”: MARIÁTEGUI AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISTS…………………………………………………………...53 “PAINTING THE PEOPLE” OR DEMYSTIFYING PERUVIAN REALITY?: AMAUTA’S VISUAL CONTENT…………………………………………………………………………….65 CONCLUSION…………………………….…………………………………………………….88 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..92 ii SUMMARY This thesis focuses on José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930), a Peruvian critic and Marxist political activist who founded the Peruvian Socialist Party. Mariátegui also edited the journal Amauta, which featured literature, visual art, and theoretical and political texts from 1926 to 1930. This project aims to contribute an original understanding of the thought and editorial practice of this historically significant figure by recuperating his endorsement of realist
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx's Changing Picture of the End of Capitalism
    Journal of the British Academy, 6, 187–206. DOI https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/006.187 Posted 30 July 2018. © The British Academy 2018 Karl Marx’s changing picture of the end of capitalism Master-Mind Lecture read 21 November 2017 GARETH STEDMAN JONES Fellow of the Academy Abstract: This essay examines three successive attempts Marx made to theorise his conception of the ‘value form’ or the capitalist mode of production. The first in the 1840s ascribed the destruction of an original human sociability to the institution of private property and looked forward to its destruction and transcendence in the coming revolution. This vision was shattered by the disenchanting failure of the 1848 revolutions. The second attempt, belonging to the 1850s and outlined in the Grundrisse, attempted to chart the rise, global triumph, and the ultimate destruction of what Marx called the ‘value form’. Its model of global triumph and final disintegration was inspired by Hegel’s Logic. But the global economic crisis of 1857–8 did not lead to the return of revolution. Marx’s disturbed reaction to this failure was seen in his paranoia about the failure of his Critique of Political Economy (1859). Marx’s third attempt to formulate his critique in Das Kapital in 1867 was much more successful. It was accompanied by a new conception of revolution as a transi­ tional process rather than an event and was stimulated by his participation in the International Working Men’s Association and the accompanying growth of cooper­ atives, trade unions, and a political reform movement culminating in the Reform Bill of 1867.
    [Show full text]
  • Was Karl Marx an Ecosocialist?
    Fast Capitalism ISSN 1930-014X Volume 17 • Issue 2 • 2020 doi:10.32855/fcapital.202002.006 Was Karl Marx an Ecosocialist? Carl Boggs Facing the provocative question as to whether Karl Marx could be regarded as an ecosocialist – the very first ecosocialist – contemporary environmentalists might be excused for feeling puzzled. After all, the theory (a historic merger of socialism and ecology) did not enter Western political discourse until the late 1970s and early 1980s, when leading figures of the European Greens (Rudolf Bahro, Rainer Trampert, Thomas Ebermann) were laying the foundations of a “red-green” politics. That would be roughly one century after Marx completed his final work. Later ecological thinkers would further refine (and redefine) the outlook, among them Barry Commoner, James O’Connor, Murray Bookchin, Andre Gorz, and Joel Kovel. It would not be until the late 1990s and into the new century, however, that leftists around the journal Monthly Review (notably Paul Burkett, John Bellamy Foster, Fred Magdoff) would begin to formulate the living image of an “ecological Marx.” The most recent, perhaps most ambitious, of these projects is Kohei Saito’s Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism, an effort to reconstruct Marx’s thought from the vantage point of the current ecological crisis. Was the great Marx, who died in 1883, indeed something of an ecological radical – a theorist for whom, as Saito argues, natural relations were fundamental to understanding capitalist development? Saito’s aim was to arrive at a new reading of Marx’s writings based on previously unpublished “scientific notebooks” written toward the end of Marx’s life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ba'th Party in Iraq: from Its Beginning Through Today
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1993-12 The Ba'th Party in Iraq: from its beginning through today Cabana, Joel L. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/39665 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA AD-A276 153 ~TC T'-7'CTE S•,AR 0 11994 S"'•THESIS THE BA'TH PARTY IN IRAQ: FROM ITS BEGINNING THROUGH TODAY by Joel L. Cabana December 1993 Thesis Advisor: Ralph H. Magnus Second Reader: Kanil T. Said Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 94-06643 - 2• R 068 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE form Approved ,~or~aI OMB NO 0704-0ie8 PNX ow i~ngDW,•aeA for this colloc'uoo of ml/oenatiort ,s "i,ritlgdlq 1o ever&"l~ i hour per respo)nse. inc4ludin t"• tirrf/ ltO reviewing instructios, searching eqwvfing dat|al 10.rc Silow:;• and mai4ntaiin the data needed. and coring tin and reviewing the ci'linoft of *focqlOna- Send commients re~rtdig th~tslovitat"q estionte or &nv olne, #%we(t Of lZi ,~ont~o of nfm4( , *•llh! v•t~n ~ N ,Wc this for~e o oh•O , ur*.trs rtv Clit, 0'rectOrate vof infoitnotO O,rotno era , tiona I l Dnd ,. ii is iteltrTion 04..S "h.y. Suite 14. 47lo n. 9Vr•i , PO214 the OUf O ie f Management and Budgt I'iaPrwoki d01 .on Project (004-014) Washington. OC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 11993 December Masters Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS The Ba'th Party in Iraq: From Its Beginning Through Today 16.
    [Show full text]
  • SOCIALISM Socialism SOCIALISM Hoffman and Graham Emphasize the Diversity of Socialist Thought
    SOCIALISM Socialism SOCIALISM Hoffman and Graham emphasize the diversity of socialist thought. They ask: Can socialism be defined? Is it an impossible dream? Do more “realistic” forms of socialism sacrifice their very socialism when they become more pragmatic? And do the diverse kinds of socialism have anything in common? SOCIALISM They also point out the difference between what they call “social democracy” or “democratic socialism” and “Marxism” or “scientific socialism.” What are the differences? SOCIALISM Social Democracy / Marxism / Democratic Socialism Scientific Socialism Moderate classes Eliminate classes Utilize the state Go beyond the state Parliament (Congress) Worker’s councils Ethically desirable Historically inevitable Nation as a whole Workers and their allies The distinction between Marxism and social democracy is the major fault line among socialisms SOCIALISM In defining socialism, the authors note that all socialists share these common features… SOCIALISM a) An optimistic view of human nature – it is changeable and not a barrier to social regulation or ownership. SOCIALISM b) A stress on cooperation – competition exists, but is not the guiding principle. SOCIALISM c) A positive view of freedom – Freedom to, not just freedom from (a material basis of freedom) SOCIALISM d) Support for equality – A basic value in any imaginable or feasible socialist society SOCIALISM The problem of Utopia SOCIALISM All socialists are vulnerable to the charge of utopianism – trying to realize a society that is contrary to human experience and historical development SOCIALISM Socialists disagree as to whether utopianism is a good or bad thing. SOCIALISM While some socialists see Utopia as a good thing, liberals and conservatives regard the notion of Utopia as negative – an irresponsible idealism that is contrary to reality, leading to regimes of a highly oppressive and totalitarian kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Popper's Critique of Utopia/Large Scale Planning
    Karl Popper’s Critique of Utopia/Large Scale Planning A paper presented at the Philosophy Research Seminar, held at the Department of Philosophy and Political Science, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. (28th April, 2012) By Oseni Taiwo Afisi Department of Philosophy, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] Abstract Two rounds of arguments are here examined in Popper’s critique of Marxism. First, I note that Popper used the word ‘falsifiable in his philosophy of science and also in his criticism of Marxian historicism. The term falsification in this regard was meant to disparage the claim that Marxism was scientific. Marxism is not a scientific theory, following Popper, I maintain in this paper. In agreement with Popper, I will argue that Marxism is a pseudoscience, a position that gains support from arguments developed by Ernest Van Den Haag that Marxism was never based on the scientific truth-content of its theory. Second, from his criticisms of holism and of large scale planning or utopian social engineering Popper’s philosophy of politics emerged. In place of totalitarianism, which often comes from an increase in state power because of large scale planning, he emphasized individual freedom. In place of utopian social engineering he emphasized piecemeal social engineering. Introduction A discussion on the critique of Marxian historicism is one of the fundamental themes that constitute Karl Popper’s philosophy of social science, in particular his political philosophy. Popper’s thesis is centred on the effects of historicism that Marxism portends. His critique of Marxism was to reveal the philosophical presuppositions that underpinned all forms of totalitarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Withered Root of Socialism
    THE WITHERED ROOT OF SOCIALISM: SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC REVISIONISM AND PARLAMENTARISMUS IN GERMANY, 1917-1919 Owen Walter York Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of History, Indiana University June 2010 Accepted by the Faculty of Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. ____________________________ Kevin Cramer, Ph.D., Chair ____________________________ Daniella Kostroun, Ph.D. Master’s Thesis Committee ____________________________ Giles R. Hoyt, Ph.D. ii To Melissa iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend the deepest thanks to Dr. Kevin Cramer, the chair of my thesis committee, for his support and guidance throughout this process and for diligently reminding me of the difficulties inherent in the study of German history. I express my gratitude to the members of my committee, Dr. Daniella Kostroun and Dr. Giles R. Hoyt, whose comments and suggestions have been immensely helpful. I would also like to thank Dr. Claudia Grossman for her assistance with translations. Additionally, I would like to thank the Max Kade German-American Center for its generous support. Last, but not least, I would like to thank friends and faculty in the IUPUI History Department. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……………………………………….………………………………………1 Chapter 1: Historical Context……………………………………………………….…….8 The German Question…………………………………………………....………10 WWI and Democratization……………………………….……………………...20
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchist Against Violence. Gustav Landauer's Subversion of The
    Anarchist against Violence. Gustav Landauer’s Subversion of the Rational Paradigm Anatole Lucet To cite this version: Anatole Lucet. Anarchist against Violence. Gustav Landauer’s Subversion of the Rational Paradigm. Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence, Trivent Publishing, 2019, Counter-Enlightenment, Revolution, and Dissent, III (2), pp.105-122. 10.22618/TP.PJCV.20204.1.201007. hal-02509397 HAL Id: hal-02509397 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02509397 Submitted on 17 Mar 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License The Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence Vol. IV, Issue 1/2020 © The Authors 2020 Available online at http://trivent-publishing.eu/ Anarchist against Violence. Gustav Landauer’s Subversion of the Rational Paradigm Anatole Lucet École normale supérieure de Lyon (laboratoire Triangle, UMR 5206), France [email protected] Abstract: At the end of the 19th century, violent attacks by so-called anarchists gave the anarchist movement an increased amount of publicity. In the meantime, the success of “scientific socialism” promoted rationality to the rank of a new political doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death of Socialism?
    Politics and Sociology Departments Final year module The Death of Socialism? Autumn Term 2018 Autumn Term 2018 Following the collapse of state socialism in Central and Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the erosion of central institutions of Western social democracy and the prevalence of free market and capitalist ideas, this module looks at the contemporary condition of socialism. Is socialism a relevant, feasible or desirable idea in contemporary society? Or is it dead, an historical relic of the 20th century? The module will start by looking at the two predominant conceptions and experiences of socialism in the twentieth century - Marxist and social democratic socialism. It will then examine criticisms of socialism from liberals and libertarians - such as Hayek and Nozick - and from new social movements - such as the women's movement and the green movement. We will look at reasons for the collapse of state socialism in the late 1980s and at attempts in the West to rethink socialism during an era in which neo- liberalism was a dominant force. We will discuss whether globalisation has led to the decline and loss of viability of social democracy. We will examine the attempt of Labour in Britain and European social democrats to respond to the crisis of social democracy and will ask whether there is anything remaining of socialism in such attempts. We will discuss the current state of the left in responding to the financial crisis and austerity and whether Corbyn’s politics involve a revival of socialism and, if so, what sort. We shall examine theses such as that of Fukuyama: that the day of socialism has passed, and that capitalism has won the battle of the two ideologies and systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx's Scientific Socialism
    This is a draft and should not be cited without express permission from the author. Karl Marx’s Scientific Socialism: A Defence Preamble The title of my paper is a twist on G.A. Cohen’s groundbreaking 1978 book Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. In this book Cohen defends Marx against a number of leading critics. However, in 2000 Cohen published a book entitled If You’re An Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? in which he becomes a critic of Marx. Indeed, in this book Cohen declares his rejection of Marx. In this book Cohen argues that Marx’s distinctive brand of scientific socialism cannot be justified because its central predictive claims have been falsified by history. In this paper I am going to defend Marx against Cohen’s criticisms. Karl Marx’s Scientific Socialism might be difficult to formulate and justify but I will argue that it does not fail for the kinds of reasons that Cohen cites. I focus on Cohen because what he has to say against Marx sums up and express widespread scepticism about the relevance of Marx for our present age. The issues that Cohen raises are issues that Marxists should confront. I think that even in Cohen parting shot to Marx, he has done Marxist philosophy a service by forcing Marxists to respond to what many take to be the leading problems with being a Marxist today. Hopefully, what I say will help to counter the kind of scepticism which Cohen directs towards Karl Marx’s Scientific Socialism. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism Introduction
    SOS POLITICAL SCIENCE & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION M.A POLITICAL SCIENCE II SEM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: MORDAN POLITICAL THOUGHT, THEORY & CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES UNIT-III Topic Name-Socialism Introduction ◦Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self- management of enterprises. ... Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity Definition ◦ In the simplest language democratic socialism means the blending of socialist and democratic methods together in order to build up an acceptable and viable political and economic structure. To put it in other words, to arrive at socialist goals through democratic means. It also denotes that as an ideology socialism is preferable to any other form such as capitalism or communism. ◦ The word socialism has been defined as “such type of socialist economy under which economic system is not only regulated by the government to ensure, welfare equity of opportunity and social justice to the people.” Who invented socialism? ◦The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marxand Friedrich Engels in 1848 just before the Revolutions of 1848 swept Europe, expressing what they termed scientific socialism. In the last third of the 19th century, social democratic parties arose in Europe, drawing mainly from Marxism. Types of socialism ◦ Anarcho-socialism ◦ Utopian socialism ◦ State-Communism ◦ Democratic socialism ◦ Libertarian socialism ◦ Social democratic socialism ◦ Christian socialism What is the main purpose of socialism? ◦ Socialism is a political movement that centers on changing the economic means of ownership and production. Its main objective is to foster a cooperative economy through the creation of cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership or shared equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of Marxist Thought in Global Socialist
    REVISION OF MARXIST THOUGHT IN GLOBAL SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVES Neelam Kumar Sharma ABSTRACT Marxism gives a common background to both school of thoughts either capitalism or socialism. Marxism is also known as scientific socialism because of its practical validity. Marxism believes that the downfall of capitalism is inevitable according to its own process of dialectic feature. Communism is an extreme limit of Marxism whereas socialism is considered to be a transitional phase of capitalism and communism. The failure of both classical capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other together with the successful achievements of socialism in various countries are sufficient evidences to rationalize the practical validity of socialism in global perspectives. In this context, particularly evolutionary socialists have sufficiently contributed to replace the deficiencies of Marxism in global socialist perspectives. Key words: Marxism, Marxist, Capitalism, Capitalist, Socialism, Socialist, Fabians Communism, Revision, Thought, Validity, System. ISSUE AND OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to analyze different paradigms of socialist economic thoughts. Some socialist economic thoughts are based on Marxist philosophy, however many socialist thoughts are in the modified forms of Marxism from different corners. Hence, Marxist economic thought are used and misused by different manners in different ways. This study presents analytical discussions on the use and misuse of Marxist thought by different philosophers in various timeframe of global perspectives. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the founder of scientific socialism. He modified Hegelian dialectic philosophy on a materialistic basis, and made social evolution a matter of material and economic forces. Marx has analyzed capitalist stage and the doctrine of class struggle on the basis of materialistic interpretation of history.
    [Show full text]